Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Lee Na-san et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Loplus, Attorneys Cheong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

October 7, 2015

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to plaintiffs 1 1,14,51,20 won, plaintiffs 2, and 3 10,000 won each, 5,000,000 won to plaintiffs 4, and 5,000,000 won each, and 5% per annum from July 13, 2014 to the date of the pronouncement of the instant case, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the parents of Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 4 is the parents of Plaintiff 1.

B. On July 13, 2014, around 8:30 a.m. and around 13, 2014, Plaintiff 1 (only hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) and the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Ham-gu Association, to which the Defendant belongs, divided the members into two teams. At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were different teams, and the Plaintiff were in charge of the number of attacks, respectively.

C. Around 20 minutes after the commencement of the said World War, there was a conflict with the Defendant, where the Plaintiff, who was in the GOAL ARE, was salute in the direction of the team to which the Plaintiff belongs, salute in the direction of the salute and the salute (the left side of the Plaintiff) to salute in the direction of the salute (the left side of the Plaintiff) to salute in the direction of the salute to salute (the specific details of the conflict are seen as following; hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff was judged on the ground that the Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as damage to salute trees, salute-signer heat, damage to vertebrate, etc., caused damage to the salute, and caused a delay in the salute on November 11, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7 (including provisional number), non-party 1 (non-party 1) witness, non-party 2's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs

The instant accident occurred when the Defendant had been outside the scope of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s access to the Plaintiff at the time, and caused considerable injury to the Plaintiff compared to ordinary injury during a stable competition. In light of such circumstances, the instant accident constitutes a tort against the Plaintiffs by violating the duty of safety care or care for the other Party during a stable competition, by examining the progress of a competition in any state in order to put in the mouth where the centering hole is being protected by the centering hole. The Plaintiff’s ice ice ice and ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ices, thereby falling into the ground and resulting in the Plaintiff’s injury. Thus, the Defendant had a duty to avoid this accident. In light of such circumstances, the instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s violation of the duty of safety care or care for the other Party during a stable competition, thereby constituting tort against the Plaintiffs.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 1 KRW 1,14,511,220 as damages and consolation money due to the accident of this case (i.e., daily income of KRW 286,292,970 as damages and consolation money of KRW 17,343,70 as damages for future treatment + KRW 115,422,07 as expenses for future treatment + KRW 16,822,320 as subsidies + KRW 628,630,145 as nursing expenses + KRW 50,000 as consolation money + KRW 50,000 as consolation money), respectively, to the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 3 as consolation money.

B. Defendant

The instant accident occurred in the course of dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and is a contingent accident within the inherent risk range that may arise due to the characteristics of the relevant stable competition, and the Defendant did not breach any duty of care in the field of the stable competition.

3. Determination

A. A. Since a participant in an athletic game may differ from other players due to his/her own act, he/she has a duty of safety consideration, which is the duty of good faith to ensure the safety of the life and body of other players in compliance with the rules of the athletic game. However, the risk of injury inherent in the athletic game, such as the stable or deaf-gu, in which prices for counter players are mainly formed, or in which many players are generated through physical contacts in one area, such as right speculation or Taekwondo. A participant in the athletic game is at the risk of injury inherent in the athletic game itself, which is accompanied by physical contacts. A participant in the athletic game is at least at a certain degree and participating in the athletic game to the extent anticipated, so whether the participant in the athletic game has fulfilled the above duty of care shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the type and risk of the athletic game in question, situation at the time of the athletic game, compliance with the rules of the parties concerned, the nature and degree of violation of the rules, and the degree of injury, etc., if the act does not exceed the extent of social reasonableness (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Da61618.

B. The following circumstances are recognized in light of each of the descriptions and images of evidence Nos. 9 and 10, and witness Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings.

1) At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff, the Alleyer, attempted to dice and see the public order, and the Defendant, the attacker, was the Defendant, and the Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, was faced with the Plaintiff’s head, which was iced by the Plaintiff, and was in the direction of the Plaintiff’s left-hand side, and eventually, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have a public order. Such a state of public competition may result in harming the Plaintiff in a stable competition. In this regard, the physical contact in the process seems to be ordinarily anticipated (in this respect, the Defendant’s act of intending to give a public order was unreasonable, and the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit).

2) 한편 이 사건 사고 당시 피고가 원고 쪽을 향해 빠른 속도로 달려간 것인지에 관하여 보건대, 이 사건 축구경기가 진행되던 축구경기장은 초등학교 내에 있는 경기장으로 보통 규격의 축구경기장보다 작은 데다가 원고와 피고 사이의 거리가 그리 멀지 않았던 것으로 보이는 점(보통 규격 상 페널티 에어리어 라인에서 골대까지 약 11m 정도임), 피고는 40대 후반으로 조기축구회 회원 중에서도 축구경기시 반응이 느린 편에 속하였고, 반면 원고는 20대 초반으로 순발력이 뛰어나고 민첩하였던 점, 이 사건 사고 당시 원고가 공중에서 하강하고 있었던 데다가 원·피고의 체격(원고: 175cm, 몸무게 55kg, 피고: 키 178cm, 몸무게 90kg 이상) 차이가 현저하여 작은 충격에도 원고가 중심을 잃고 튕겨져 나갔을 가능성도 배제할 수 없어서 이 사건 사고 당시 피고가 빠른 속도로 돌진하였다고 단정할 수 없는 점 등에 비추어, 갑 제4호증의 각 기재 및 증인 소외 1의 일부 증언만으로는 이를 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거도 없다.

3) Even if the Defendant’s body was unable to stop due to speed while leading to the attack, it is difficult to expect that the Defendant’s act would be in violation of the sports rules or an unlawful act solely on the ground that the Defendant’s act did not avoid the collision at the time of the instant accident, as seen earlier, is likely to be in violation of the sports rules or an unlawful act in a situation where it is not clear that the Plaintiff, a sakir, may face an attack with the Plaintiff.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s act as an act deviating from the scope of social reasonableness in the stable competition, and it cannot be viewed any different solely on the sole basis that the Plaintiff’s result of injury caused by the instant accident is more serious than the ordinary injury that may arise during the stable competition, and there is no other evidence to deem that there was a breach of duty of due care to compensate the Defendant for damages in relation to the instant

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Seoh-man (Presiding Judge) Park Jong-hee Kim Ghana